Jeremy Hunt: Does the Secretary of State agree that given the relatively slow progress being made by the EU towards meeting its Kyoto targets, that yesterday President Bush once again affirmed that he would not be prepared to accept compulsory emissions targets for the United States, and that the developing world has consistently said that it will prioritise economic growth over environmental targets, today's discussions at Gleneagles are more about rhetoric than reality? Does she accept that when it comes to securing a global consensus on emissions targets we are going backwards, not forwards, instead of going, "Forward, not back"?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the goals that the Government have set. I take his point, but in many ways that was what we sought to do through the conference that was convened in Exeter in February—which perhaps did not receive as much publicity as it should have don, because there was rather a lot of publicity about some potential elections. There is no doubt that the conference advanced our understanding that the threat is more substantial and more immediate than previously imagined, and that it will cost less to tackle it than we had previously thought if we begin early enough. That is both an encouraging and a discouraging message. Only a few days ago, the national academies of science of every G8 country and China, India and Brazil produced a strong joint statement about their belief that climate change is happening and is man made. Through our G8 and EU presidencies, I hope that we will be able to take action to tackle it.

Tony Baldry: Many articles were placed by the Government before the general election indicating that they were tackling all sorts of environmental crime, including litter, chewing gum on the pavements, people repairing cars on the streets and other such stuff. Expectations were raised and people expected local authorities to act. The only problem is that most of the really sexy stuff—the stuff with teeth—does not take effect until 2006 or 2007, so people are getting very frustrated and they are blaming local authorities, which are also getting frustrated. Will Ministers make it clear which bits of the 2005 Act are in force today and which bits will come into force in 2006 and 2007, so that people do not have frustrated expectations about which bits of environmental crime will be tackled?

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend makes a good and important point. We talk to the ODPM on these issues at regular intervals. Flood risk maps are publicly available, and I recommend people to see whether their home is in a flood risk area. I understand my hon. Friend's point, which is a serious one, and we will certainly give it thought.

Daniel Kawczynski: I thank the Minister for that reply. I met a farmer recently in my constituency, in the village of Cruckton, near Shrewsbury. He was so desperate about TB that he allegedly shot a badger. He got into terrible trouble with the local police. There is an effective moratorium on the granting of licences for the killing of badgers. This is putting farmers, such as my constituent, in a terrible position. I ask the Government to look at the matter again and to relax the granting of licences for killing badgers.

Climate Change

Chris Grayling: Clearly, as the Leader of the House says, the business of the House is overshadowed by this morning's dreadful events in London. It is obviously too early to know the full details of what has happened, but I know that the whole House will wish to echo the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and send our sympathies to all those caught up in these terrible incidents. We also want to express our gratitude to the emergency services and the medical staff at London hospitals who are currently dealing with the problems and working to help the victims.
	I am grateful to the Leader of the House and, indeed, to the Home Secretary for agreeing to come to the House so soon to brief Members about what has happened. I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that, as matters develop over the rest of today and over the next few days, Members are regularly updated so that we are kept informed about what is happening in relation to these events. Does he agree that it is essential that we do not allow terrorists to undermine the democratic process in this country? They must not be allowed to undermine the fabric of our society and we must resist them with 100 per cent. vigour.
	This morning's news has clearly diverted attention away from the Olympic bid, but the Leader of the House and myself want to add our voices to the congratulations sent yesterday to Lord Coe and the bid team. Will the Leader give us more information about the timetable that he envisages for the Olympic Bill? How quickly will it be able to pass through the House? Clearly, it needs to be properly scrutinised, but Conservative Members would like to see it pass into law as quickly as possible, subject to that proper scrutiny, to help the bid team migrate into the games team. We can then start the long and hard process of making the games a reality.
	Finally, when does the Leader of the House intend to publish the detailed motions for debate next Wednesday?

Kate Hoey: I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 440 on Zimbabwe and asylum seekers.
	[That this House recognises that there continues to be a real risk of persecution in Zimbabwe for those who are perceived to be politically active in opposition to the government and the ruling party, and acknowledges that some people such as Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) activist and supporters are more at risk than others; further notes that there are an estimated 1,800 Zimbabweans in the UK who have failed in their attempts to win asylum; and based on the recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, urges the Government to review its policy of returning Zimbabweans who have failed in their efforts to be granted asylum.]
	I am sorry to return to the subject, but we seem to getting nowhere. I appreciate that the Home Secretary is particularly busy today, but the question of the large numbers of asylum seekers on hunger strike, two of whom face a particularly serious situation, is an important one. Yesterday Lord Justice Collins asked the Home Secretary not to deport any more Zimbabwean asylum seekers until he considers the matter in more detail on 4 August. Can we have an assurance that this matter will be debated and that we will have some sort of statement over the next two days? Some people's lives are really at risk.

David Heath: On a day when it is right that all parties in the House demonstrate how we stand together on such matters, may I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with the comments made by the Leader of the House and the Conservative spokesman? I also wish to express our thanks to those in the emergency services for their work, which I saw for my own eyes at Aldgate this morning. Their work is extraordinary and very much appreciated.
	I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for both the statement later this morning and his readiness to ensure that the House is kept properly informed. Of course, that statement will necessarily be a very early assessment of the situation, and it will be necessary to come back, perhaps on more than one occasion, to explore the issues involved more fully.
	On other matters, is it possible in the near future to hold a debate on the United Kingdom's bilateral relationships with the United States? It seems an entirely appropriate moment to consider both the positive aspects of those relationships and the difficulties that the two nations face jointly. I am very aware of the concerns that have been expressed on Capitol hill, for instance, about the future conduct of our policy in Iraq. It is right that the House should also have the opportunity to discuss those matters and others, such as our arrangements on extradition and other security issues.
	Is it possible for the Leader of the House to look again at the way that Northern Irish legislation is debated in the House? It is becoming a matter of great concern both to those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies and to other hon. Members who have an interest that legislation is passed by virtue of statutory instruments with no capacity for amendment. There is a limit to the extent to which legislation can be properly scrutinised in that way. Is it not appropriate that we now look again at how we approach those issues?
	Lastly, we would also wish, of course, to be associated with what should have been a day of celebration on winning the Olympics for London. We look forward to the Bill that the Leader of the House has indicated will be introduced. Perhaps I could just make one suggestion to him. A very large sum of public money will necessarily be involved in setting up the Olympics for 2012, and it will cover a great number of Departments. May I suggest that there might be a role for a special Select Committee of the House to scrutinise overall the arrangements for the Olympics from now until 2012, so that the House can consider what is and is not happening—progress and non-progress—and ensure that the House is properly represented and has the opportunity to make sure that the Government are playing their role to the fullest extent?

Tom Levitt: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend recalls a conversation that we had in 1991, when he had the privilege of representing myself and a few thousand others in the European Parliament. At that time, we discussed the need to reform the common agricultural policy, and I am sure that there is unanimity in the House about the Prime Minister's initiative to use the European Union presidency to make major reforms to the CAP not just from the point of view of agriculture, but from that of the developing world. Can we look forward at an early stage to the publication of proposals on what changes we hope to get in the CAP?

Tony Baldry: I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give some thought during his busy week to ministerial courtesies. When we in the Opposition were fortunate enough to be Ministers and Members of Parliament—our parliamentary colleagues—asked to see us, we went out of our way to ensure that they did, particularly Opposition MPs, because we were very conscious of the fact that they could not usually nobble us or get to us in the Division Lobby. In the past couple of weeks, I have made written requests on perfectly valid constituency issues—one was on a community hospital, the other on the effect of the closure of a railway line—to see two of his ministerial colleague that have been dealt with fairly peremptorily by one paragraph letters. The Leader of the House has expressed concern about turnout at general elections. It is not surprising if turnout falls at general elections if Ministers are contemptuous of the perfectly legitimate concerns of Members of Parliament. It is a matter of courtesy that perhaps he could take up with his colleagues.

Jim Cunningham: When are we going to have a debate on the Strategic Rail Authority, particularly on the lack of investment in the Coventry-Nuneaton line and the need for a new station once the Coventry arena has opened.

Charles Clarke: First, may I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for being slightly later than I had hoped in making this statement?
	As the House will know, this morning there have been a number of terrorist attacks in central London. The situation is developing and I am not yet in a position to give a conclusive account of all that has happened, but I wanted to keep the House as fully informed as possible.
	I begin by expressing on behalf of the whole country our sympathy for those injured and for the families and friends of those who have died. I am not in a position at this time to give precise details, but what I can say is that four explosions have been confirmed. The first was on a tube train between Aldgate East and Liverpool Street. The second was on a bus in Woburn place. The third was on a tube train between Russell Square and King's Cross and the fourth was on a tube train at Edgware Road station. As yet, we do not know who or which organisations are responsible for those criminal and appalling acts. Of course, our first responsibility is to protect and support the public at this time. The Metropolitan police are in operational command, using well-established and tested procedures. The health services are providing first-class care and support.
	On transport, the underground is closed and will remain so for some time; it will certainly be closed today. There are no buses in central London and Transport for London will decide when to resume services later today. Overground services are subject to substantial delays. Most stations are open, but some are closed. Network Rail will try to reopen them as soon as it can. Airports are operating normally. People are strongly advised not to travel into central London, as the emergency services must be allowed to do their work in the most effective way they can.
	The Cabinet was informed this morning and since then I have chaired Cobra meetings to ensure that the whole Government commitment is properly co-ordinated and any necessary support is provided. The Prime Minister is returning to London from Gleneagles to chair a Cobra meeting later today. I will continue to keep the House fully informed.

Charles Clarke: I very much appreciate the support of the hon. Gentleman, whose country and party are very familiar—too familiar—with the consequences of such situations.
	On his question, yes, we will seek to ensure that the communication goes to the families directly. There is a well-established procedure in place to try to ensure that that happens. It is a difficult process. Of course, I wish that I could guarantee that we would succeed on all occasions, but we will certainly do our very best.

John Reid: I want to begin by thanking my opposite number, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). The Conservative spokesman gave the Government his immediate and spontaneous understanding and solidarity today. He also kindly offered to agree to a suspension or postponement of this debate, if the Government decided that that was the best course of action, and I am very grateful for that. Like the shadow Home Secretary a few moments ago, the right hon. Gentleman responded with the generosity of spirit that we expect from him, and with the character that symbolises this House in times of difficulty. However, it is right that we proceed with the debate. As was made clear in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, part of the intention of these awful acts is to disrupt democracy, and it is right that we should show how resilient democracy is.
	The sun that set last night on joyous and happy celebrations in London, this morning rose to a day of awful, criminal savagery. It brings home to us again the character and courage of the members of our emergency services. Even as we speak, they are the front line of our response to these terrible acts. I am sure that all hon. Members have them in mind, and the difficult and dangerous work that they do, as we continue our work here.
	I am also sure that all of us will want to express our utter condemnation of those responsible for today's attacks. We must ensure that they understand that they will not win in their attempt to break our will or undermine our democratic response to today's events.
	In a sense, what has happened today reminds us of the terrible dangers that our servicemen and women face as they act in the service of the country. Even as we attempt to cope with the situation here at home in London, thousands of our service personnel are deployed across the world. They are helping to improve lives, deliver security and ensure peace, and they display the professionalism, courage and selflessness that continue to inspire the people of this country. On my own behalf, and I hope on behalf of the whole House, I want to place on record my personal gratitude to, and admiration for, those serving in the British armed forces across the world. On a day when we are expressing our thanks to the emergency services here, I want to thank them for the job that they do.
	Only a few weeks ago, I saw that work in Iraq. There, British troops are playing an essential role—amidst the same awful and terrible dangers that appear to have afflicted us today—in reconstructing the Iraqi security forces and that country's civil society. We should be proud—and we are—of the outstanding job that our forces have done in Iraq, as elsewhere. In those dangerous circumstances, they have made an immense contribution to improving the lives of millions of Iraqis, enhancing their security, and providing them with the opportunities that we have taken for granted for so long—to vote and to have better access to clean water, health care and education.
	The 65,000 UK service personnel have made that happen. Rightly, they deserve our gratitude, but I also want to place on record our appreciation of the support given by their families back home. They deserve our heartfelt gratitude as well.
	Our servicemen and women, and their families, have demonstrated the same bravery and determination to get the job done as did those who served in previous decades, including in world war two. This week is veterans week, and so this debate is timely. I know that the House will wish to join me in paying the warmest of personal tributes to those men and women who served their country in the second world war, and since.
	A personal highlight of the week for me has been that I and the Opposition spokesman have had the honour to invite and accompany Winston Churchill's daughter Lady Soames to many of the events. It has been wonderful to see the bond of solidarity that still unites people of that generation. It has been inspiring to see how that spirit lives on, in small ways, after all the years.

John Reid: On the first point, yes, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I do indeed join him in expressing my deep, deep regret and condolences to the families of the servicemen whose lives were lost in that Hercules crash. From speaking to some of the families, I know that the hon. Gentleman has been involved in helping them as a constituency MP and more widely. I cannot give him a specific date. Obviously, I want the report as quickly as possible because I know that the grief of a family is only compounded by a lack of knowledge about the circumstances of that loss. I therefore hope it will be published as quickly as possible. I undertake after today's debate to go back and make a further gentle inquiry. I do not want to be seen in any way to interfere with inquests or inquiries of any kind. I may create another problem if people get the suspicion that a Minister is somehow intervening. Nevertheless, it is perfectly legitimate from time to time to inquire, and I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman and to the families to give them my latest appreciation of the situation, provided that does not transgress any of the independent players looking into the matter.

John Reid: May I make a little progress first? I shall take interventions from Opposition Members shortly.
	I shall now abbreviate and simplify what I was going to say. As this is my first debate on this subject, I was going to outline my personal approach. Over the past few years—ever since the statement that our foreign policy, the foreign policy of a new Government, should have a moral and ethical dimension—it has been easy to gain the impression that we have fallen into what our critics would call a certain pragmatism, and what others would describe as a neo-conservative agenda elsewhere. Let me set out in simple terms my own view of Britain's role in the world.
	I believe that at home, domestically, as citizens of this country, we do not have absolute rights, and we do not have the right to get ahead irrespective of the consequences of our actions for others. I hope that our political background—certainly that of Labour Members—is one in which the role of a citizen of this country is encompassed by a combination, or balance, of rights, interests and responsibilities. I see our role in the world in exactly the same way. We are citizens of the world, a world that is shrinking almost visibly before us. Acts which, long ago, could be branded as something happening in faraway countries of which we knew little and for which we cared even less are now brought before our eyes every day through new technology and communications. Transportation systems take us from one part of the world to another in unbelievably short times. If we ever believed that our brothers and sisters in other parts of the world were no responsibility of ours, it gets harder by the year to do so. Therefore, in the international community and as a citizen of the world, this country has our rights to defend, our interests to maintain and also our responsibilities to discharge. In doing that, we sometimes have to use diplomacy, finance, aid and trade—all the matters that are being discussed at the G8—and also fighting power.
	Sometimes we have to use fighting power to separate others, and sometimes to bend others to our will. That is the general approach that I take. In other words, I simply reject the view that if we take a form of action that coincides with anyone else's action, it is not because it derives from some imposed neo-conservative view but because it derives from our own view of the world, which—at given points in time—coincides with action by those who hold other points of view.

John Reid: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments about my nice little speech. I thank him for his nice little speech. Unfortunately, it is wrong. It assumes that bigger is better. He seems to have forgotten the lesson of Trafalgar, even within a fortnight of the 200th anniversary, that our side was smaller than the French and Spanish fleet. Nelson had 27 ships, compared with the 33 in the fleet he faced. He won, because fighting capability and power cannot be equated with the number of vessels. Fighting power depends on the technology on the vessels, how well trained are the men and women aboard, and the morale of the troops. The training and morale of Nelson's troops gave him a huge advantage over the French and Spanish.
	Let us bring the question to the modern world? Is it possible to have smaller numbers and greater capability? Of course, it is. For example, there were far fewer air sorties in the second Gulf war than in the first Gulf war but they hit far more targets because they used different technologically directed bombs—so-called "smart" bombs as opposed to dumb bombs. Let us consider the number of ships that are necessary for the United States to put out two, three or four carrier task groups. Because of the building of ships nowadays, there is a far higher return on the fleet on the sea active than would have been the case 10 or 15 years ago. That is why Defence Secretary Rumsfeld's prediction, when he worked for the Reagan Administration, that his fleet then would be twice the size of the one that he has now does not mean that his smaller fleet now is less capable. It is not.
	Although I respect the hon. Gentleman's work on the Public Accounts Committee, it is a false to assume that one necessarily has less capability because one has smaller numbers. That is patently not the case. Otherwise we would have retained conscription in this country and would have 200,000, 300,000 or 400,000 soldiers who were very good at painting Nissen huts black and white but not very good at the front in a war.

John Reid: Yes, I very much recognise that, and I do not blame my hon. Friend for raising her constituency interest in the matter. Workers in the defence industry play a very important role and, over the years, I have found that they have been prepared to go through some very difficult transformations and to re-educate, reallocate and so on in a way that has not been possible in every section of industry.
	I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise, however, that the Government have an obligation, particularly when we have a duty of care, to make sure that, when we place young men and women in war situations, that we get the best value for money not just to please the accountants but to make sure that the men and women whom we place in such situations are protected to the very best of our ability. Any pound that is wasted and that is not value for money is taken away from the protection, training, technology and so on that they have at the front.
	I know that such points are borne carefully in mind by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the armed forces when he looks at these matters, but I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that we have an obligation, first and foremost, to maintain the effectiveness and output of our fighting power rather than a primary obligation to keep this or that industry in the position in which it has been for some time.

John Reid: I fully understand the circumstances that delayed my hon. Friend today; had they been different, I would simply have told him that I answered that question—in part—when he was not here. In doing so, I pointed out that we have tried to de-escalate the number of warheads to less than 200, for example, so we have been playing our part. Yes, I am disappointed that we did not get an agreement on the non-proliferation treaty. The United Kingdom played a reasonably important part in those discussions—in fact, in some conference sessions we acted as European Union representative—and we tried to secure agreement on certain elements. I am sorry that we did not do so, but that does not mean that there are no other ways of making progress. I can assure my hon. Friend that in considering the various costs, the associated politics and the military aspects of a possible replacement for the Trident system, we will do nothing that is at odds with our obligations to the international community.
	I want to turn briefly to an issue that has already been raised: the nature of our relationship with Europe and the United States. We continue to believe that a strong Euro-Atlantic partnership, with NATO at its heart, underpins our security policy. NATO is an enduring alliance and it has been hugely successful in adapting to a changing strategic environment. On the other hand, we do not believe that our commitment to NATO is any way incompatible with developing a European security and defence policy and related activity. We try, wherever possible, to ensure that the two institutions act in concert and in partnership—not in competition—and that they do not duplicate resources in, for instance, Darfur or Sudan. After assuming the EU presidency on 1 July, we will continue to try to develop the ESDP, and to lead the EU in a fashion that dovetails with our belief in NATO as a successful military alliance.
	In a sense, the current strategic environment, the complex nature of the necessary security response—as opposed to simply a defence response—to many of the problems that we face nowadays, and the obligation to accompany defence with political initiatives and financial, diplomatic and humanitarian assistance, plays into the character of the European Union. It allows us to accompany NATO alliance capabilities with a degree of civil-military partnership through the EU. That, in turn, enables us to grow both institutions effectively in terms of cohesion, activity and capability, and to make them complementary rather than competitive.
	Those three words—cohesion, activity and capability—will mark anything that I do as pro tem president of Europe's Defence Ministers. We need to increase our capability, but it has to be usable capability. There is no good in having shop-window forces or great numbers on paper if none of them can be used, if they are not fit for purpose, or if they are not the flexible, deployable, expeditionary-type outreach forces that are necessary in the world today. Secondly, we need to ensure cohesion. We need to bring together the necessary political, diplomatic, financial, humanitarian and military responses, to use what we need when it is needed, and to make the right judgments on the right occasions.

Michael Ancram: No, as the hon. Gentleman would understand if he had listened to what I said. The Government admit that the Navy's tasks will have to change due to the reductions that they are making. The Government are having to accept that that is what their reductions involve. For example, when we consider the decommissioning of frigates, HMS Marlborough was 15 years old and HMS Grafton is eight years old. The idea that we should scrap, decommission or sell on to another Navy ships that were commissioned only within such time periods requires serious explanations from the Government that have not been forthcoming.
	I turn to the RAF. The NAO report refers to the temporary reduction in flying hours for fast-jet pilots from 17.5 hours a month to 16.5 for the duration of 2005–06. The current requirement is already a reduction from 18.5 hours, and the number of flying hours for fast-jet pilots has been reducing over recent years. On Monday, the Minister of State said:
	"We intend to increase the hours next year."—[Official Report, 4 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 13.]
	So, will he tell the House whether that intention to increase flying hours will benefit all our pilots? Will flying time return to 18.5 hours or more? If not, what assessment has he made of the impact of the present reduction on the training of our airmen? Does he agree with the NAO that it could seriously degrade the skills of combat pilots? That is a very serious accusation indeed.
	The NAO report should shame the Government. I have to say that I feel sorry for the Secretary of State because I believe that his heart is in the right place in relation to defence and our armed services. Certainly, much of what he said today indicated that. However, in the strategic defence review, for which he can take personal credit, the shortfalls that we are dealing with at present were not envisaged. His frustration at the bad stewardship of his predecessor, the current Leader of the House, on whose watch all that occurred, must be as great as mine. I hope that the Secretary of State will not be as supine as his predecessor in the face of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is really the cause of the trouble. He has never understood the nature of defence and has cared even less.
	The truth is that at a time when our armed forces are pressured as never before, with deployments constantly above normal levels, the Government have been responsible for a catalogue of disasters that have reduced the effectiveness of our armed forces and cost the British taxpayer millions of pounds. Let me give the Minister a few examples; the first one may be small, but it is indicative. The Ministry of Defence spent £5,000 on torches for the SAS that could not be used because they rattled.
	The MOD lost track of 200,000 sets of body armour and £241,000-worth of ammunition—in Afghanistan of all places. The MOD accidentally—that is the word that was used—scrapped helicopter rotor blades at a loss of £151,000. It mislaid two huge C130 transport aircraft undercarriage struts at a cost of £296,000. A human centrifuge used to train pilots was scrapped because it was too expensive at £14 million, but the MOD had to pay £14.4 million to scrap it and the Malaysians took delivery of it. The list is endless.
	Losses and special payments have risen relentlessly under the Government. The amount was £116 million in 2001–02, £260 million in 2002–03, £559 million in 2003–04 and the cost may top £1 billion in 2004–05. That wasted money could instead have been used to avoid some of the damaging cuts announced recently. If those losses and special payments had been brought under control, the Royal Navy could have retained its frigates and the Army its four battalions. It is hardly a record of which to be proud.

Michael Ancram: I do not have the full details of that and I would not want to answer the hon. Gentleman on that basis. However, I remember certain areas of expenditure, not on defence, but on the dome and in other areas, where the Government have shown themselves to be very insensitive to the way in which they waste public money. In this case, what makes it worse is that they are not only wasting taxpayers' money, but doing so in a way that is reducing the security of this country and letting down our armed forces.
	The Government should be even less proud of the gaping vacuum that is growing in the vital context of training. The squeeze on the defence budget has had a devastating effect. Reductions in training have a progressively damaging effect on fighting power and ethos, and its maintenance should be central to the Government's policy. While a heavy commitment to operations can offset some of these disadvantages, particularly in respect of command training, reducing activity levels for field force units that are not committed to operations is a self-inflicted wound. It is important that our servicemen and women are properly trained—certainly as well as previously, if not better. That is simply not the case today. Individual soldiers are less well trained than they were, training standards are too low, gunnery and field firing camps are cancelled, and training between infantry, tanks, engineers and those parts of the Army that may have to co-operate and fight together rarely takes place. I understand that the Ministry of Defence is even examining whether to cut brigade level training further.
	The Territorial Army, the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force have traditionally supported and complemented our regular forces. Without their dedication, our regular forces would not be able to function as they do. They have become an integral part of our ability to operate on the ground, not least in conflict situations. But is it right to put such pressure on them, and on their families and jobs, just because the Government will not face up to the damage to regular recruitment caused by their defence policies? The trend in recruitment should be ringing louder alarm bells. Far from being buoyant, as it was described by a Minister a month ago, official figures that we have received from the Government in answers to written questions show that recruitment to the RAF has more than halved in the past three years, while the Royal Navy has experienced a 30 per cent. fall and the Army a 20 per cent. drop.
	Those figures are alarming and underline the effects of the significant pressures that are being placed on our armed forces by this Government. Our reserve forces are not an infinite supply. The dramatic fall in TA recruitment since 1997, which was also recorded in a recent written answer, speaks volumes. Soon they will not be able to backfill for regular units. Then the emperor's new clothes, which are largely hidden by the TA blanket, will be revealed, and the Government will have a real security crisis to address but nothing to address it with. That is a black hole that no responsible Government should allow to arise.

Michael Ancram: I read Michael Portillo's article. He is a very lucid and fluent writer and I understand what persuaded him, but it did not persuade me. The Opposition want a full debate on the nuclear deterrent so that we can explain our position, and so that those with a contrary view can do the same.
	In a wide-ranging debate like this, we are also able to explore specific military operations in which we are involved overseas. Like the Secretary of State, I shall start with Iraq. I supported the war, and still support it. However, I have long been critical of the abject failure to plan for the aftermath—a failure in which the Government were totally complicit. The disbandment of Iraq's internal security apparatus, which I criticised at the time, was, quite frankly, crass. Even the American Administration has made it clear that they think that it was a mistake. It created a security vacuum, into which insurgents poured. They continue to do so, and we are paying a heavy price for that.
	Ever since the remarkably successful election in January, Iraq seems to be descending deeper into violence. The rise of ethnic militias, the weakness of the economy, continuing high levels of insurgency and the endemic kidnappings continue. All, I fear, flow directly from the lack of a post-conflict plan. The consequences are clear. We are told that the troops will stay as long as necessary and, in the much used phrase, until "the job is done". But what is the definition of "the job", and who will judge when it is done? What are the geographical limits within which we will judge whether the job has been done sufficiently for our troops to start coming home? Does "the job" refer to our area of control in Multi-National Division (South-East), or to what is happening throughout Iraq?
	On Monday, I asked the Secretary of State the same question. He said that the Government
	"have not decided and do not have any plans for operating outside MND (South-East), but it is impossible to make those decisions until we get to that stage."
	Once the Government consider that the job in MND (South-East) is done, will the Minister clarify whether he would be prepared in principle to extend the mission of the British armed forces outside that area, if the US Government were to ask for British troops to assist in other sectors? If so, what would be the criteria governing such a decision? That is an important question, because drawing down ultimately depends on restoring adequate stability and security to Iraq, which itself depends on the presence in those areas of sufficiently trained Iraqi security forces.
	On Monday, the Secretary of State said that
	"approximately 170,000 security forces . . . are now sufficiently trained gradually to take the lead in counter-terrorism."—[Official Report, 4 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 15–16.]
	In the interests of transparency in this central part of the coalition's plans to ensure future security in Iraq, will the Minister say how many of the Iraqi security forces could take the lead in counter-terrorism today? Is there any truth in reports that right now only three of 107 army battalions—that is, about 2,500 troops—are fully capable of operating independently?
	Everything in the end follows from security. In its absence, reconstruction cannot go forward, Iraqis will not put their faith in their Government and we will not be able to leave responsibly. We need a clear indication not of the timetable, but of the Government's strategy for eventually leaving Iraq.The answer to the foregoing question may, however, to a large extent depend on our commitments to Afghanistan and the international security assistance force. The violence in Afghanistan, as we know, has recently heightened. There are new fears that Taliban forces will escalate attacks in the run-up to the September elections. There are growing concerns that the coalition forces are increasingly involved in a war of attrition and, worse still, a potential drugs war as well.
	The Prime Minister said in 2001:
	"Ninety per cent. of the heroin on British streets originates in Afghanistan. The arms the Taliban are buying today are paid for by the lives of young British people buying their drugs on British streets. That is another part of their regime we should seek to destroy."
	There is a terrible irony in those remarks. The Government volunteered to take charge of narcotic eradication, yet under their control poppy production is now at all-time record levels. US diplomats in Kabul are openly claiming that the United Kingdom is, in their words, "substantially responsible" for the failure to eradicate poppy fields. The question I have for the Minister of State is this: what is our priority and what will be our priority over the next years in Afghanistan—to quell the insurgency or to curtail poppy production? In both cases, what genuine support can we expect from Afghan forces?
	The divisions over Iraq led to one of the worst periods in transatlantic relations for the past 60 years. The recent disagreements over Darfur were a further reminder of the animosity on defence that, in my view, sadly and wrongly has developed between NATO and the European Union. The agreement made between NATO and the EU in relation to Darfur on 9 June was a fudge. The United States wanted NATO to co- ordinate the airlift into Darfur. France demanded an exclusively EU mission. Now NATO and the EU will run side-by-side airlift missions, supposedly co-ordinated through offices in Addis Ababa in Ethiopia. Britain, in order to be friendly to both sides in this extraordinary situation, will be involved in both. It could not be worse. This unseemly spat and the grubby compromise that has followed it is bad for the suffering people of Darfur, for Europe and for the transatlantic alliance.
	Europe, working through NATO, has an unprecedented chance to prove its military worth. Europe, working separately, will not do so. Many continental forces have only the most basic logistics and communications capabilities and can hardly operate at all at any distance from home. Few can credibly sustain their own operations and have to rely almost entirely on the United States for intelligence, strategic support and military muscle. Separate European military structures are a self-delusion that can only weaken Europe and undermine NATO. With profound changes of thinking in America, they might eventually even decouple the US from the defence of Europe. It is a high-risk strategy and one that I totally deplore.
	On 15 June, the Prime Minister, rather surprisingly, referred in the House to the need for what he called
	"serious debate . . . about. . . security policies for Europe in the early 21st century",
	and he added the question
	"is our main alliance still with America?"—[Official Report, 15 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 255–56.]
	We would answer that with a resounding yes. Would the Government do so in the light of what has happened?
	At a time when NATO can and must provide readily available, well trained forces for Afghanistan and Iraq, it would be a disaster if it was allowed to be undermined by ancient French jealousies or the fantasy of a European military superpower to rival the United States of America. NATO must remain the cornerstone of our national security and we must continue to play our full part in it. We must strengthen rather than weaken our armed forces. We need more infantry and more front-line capability. We believe that our Navy is now dangerously small and weakened and that scaling down our air power risks our security. The Government's defence policy owes more to the Chancellor's long-term ambitions than to the security requirements of the nation. We need greater manpower, better equipment and more training. Under this Government, in each case, we are getting less. They are risking the well-being of our armed forces and the security of our citizens. It is time they went away and thought again.

Michael Moore: The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) has raised a very important matter, to which I hope to return later in my own remarks.
	The bomb blasts in London today have cast a terrible shadow over the whole country and this afternoon's debate and I associate myself with the comments of the Secretary of State for Defence and the shadow Defence Secretary. Our thoughts and prayers go out to those caught up in these terrible incidents and to their families and friends. Our thoughts are also with the emergency services as they go about their difficult jobs.
	I wholeheartedly endorse the decision of the Secretary of State and others to proceed with this debate. It is right to do so, as it sends an important signal to those who wish to destroy our democracy. I thank the Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, for his courtesy in giving me advance notice that, because of other serious commitments, he would probably not be present to listen to the speeches of myself and others. We fully understand that.
	For all the disagreements in the House on different aspects of defence issues, there is a consensus that we live in a rapidly changing world. The uncertainties of old have changed but not disappeared and we are still coming to terms with the ugly new uncertainties of the 21st century. Our armed forces have to grapple with those uncertainties day in, day out, and I echo the tributes of others to the professionalism, dedication and bravery of all who serve on our behalf. The reputation of our armed forces is second to none, so we are right to be proud of them and grateful to them.
	This year, we mark the 60th anniversary of the end of world war two, which is a sobering reminder of the costs and horrors of war. This week, we have been paying tribute to veterans of all wars and conflicts, and I applaud the Government's initiative in establishing the event. Last week, many of us were fortunate enough to participate in the magnificent Trafalgar celebrations on the Solent—a fantastic tribute, on which all involved should be congratulated. It was a privilege to be there. All those commemorations and events are a reminder of the freedoms that we enjoy and we must never take them for granted.
	As part of the Trafalgar celebrations, some of us had the good fortune last week to attend a reception on HMS Invincible in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen. What we did not necessarily appreciate at the time was the fact that it may have been the ship's swansong as we now hear that it is to be mothballed.
	The fate of HMS Invincible is symbolic of the major changes taking place as a result of the defence White Paper. Across our armed forces, a small-scale revolution is taking place at the same time as we witness some of the highest levels of commitment in the post-war period. The Defence Committee's fourth report of the last Parliament raised serious questions about the ability of the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces to manage that process. The Secretary of State has given a forthright response. In so doing, he has set his Ministry some very challenging tasks at a very difficult time.
	Iraq remains the country's most pressing overseas commitment. Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to the professionalism of those in the British armed forces who have served and continue to serve there. Similarly, I convey my condolences and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the families and friends of those who have given their lives in the conflict. We should not forget those who are recovering from the injuries and wounds that they have suffered there.
	To say the least, the security situation in Iraq remains perilous—with more than 1,000 deaths since the formation of the new Iraqi Government in April and the recent kidnapping of the Egyptian ambassador-designate and the attempted assassinations of the Bahraini and Pakistani ambassadors this week—but some progress has been made in the provision of basic public services. With the Iraqi Ministry of Health reporting that more than 75 hospitals and nearly all the primary care clinics that were damaged or looted during and after the 2003 conflict have been rehabilitated and with further work under way to construct new—and rehabilitate older—hospitals in Iraq, progress looks good. However, we should not deceive ourselves that Iraqis are enjoying anything approaching a normal life, and they will continue to have a long, hard haul over the coming months and years.
	Over what is now a very short period, the people of Iraq must finalise the constitutional arrangements that will enable them to take full control of their own sovereignty. The constitution must be drawn up by the 55 member committee by the middle of August to allow a referendum by the end of September that will, in turn, allow fresh elections to be held by the middle of December. None of that will be easy.
	There are some positive signs, which we welcome. The constitutional committee has agreed to the membership of 15 Sunnis and the head of the general conference for Sunnis in Iraq has said that Sunni clerics will soon encourage people to register with the electoral commission and vote, raising hopes that political efforts by the Shi'a and Kurdish-dominated Government to draw the Sunnis into the political process may now be bearing fruit.
	As that political process develops, the ongoing role of the coalition forces is increasingly in the spotlight. While recognising the key security role of the multinational forces, it is clear that the Iraqis themselves see the occupation, however mandated, as an ongoing political problem, not least because, as yet, there appears to be no clarity about an exit strategy. The signals from Washington are mixed: the Vice-President says that the insurgency is in its last throes, while the US Defence Secretary says that it may take a dozen years to quell the insurgents.
	The Iraqis are right to want a clear exit strategy for the multinational forces and it is the coalition's responsibility to set out one. The Secretary of State for Defence gave some signs of that happing in his interview on the "Today" programme earlier this week and in his response to the questions from the shadow Defence Secretary on Monday and, indeed, in his speech today. We have started to see the beginnings of a strategy, and we are encouraged by that, as far as it goes.
	Liberal Democrat Members remain of the view that we can make the greatest contribution to Iraq's internal stability and the development of its body politic by setting out a clear timetable for a phased withdrawal of our forces in line with the United Nations mandate authorised by Security Council resolutions. That must take account of the security situation, the state of public services and the completion of the constitutional process, but without such a strategy, the chances of a swift improvement in the terrible conditions in which Iraqis lead their lives will be minimal and the risks that we will become mired in a situation outwith our control will become all the greater.
	In Afghanistan, we face a different set of challenges and realities, and we are taking on greater commitments. Much progress has been made since the fall of the Taliban Government in 2001 and another important step will be reached with the parliamentary and provincial elections due in mid-September, but the security situation in the country is bleak. As the UN special envoy, Jean Arnault, reported to the Security Council a couple of weeks ago, it is going through a "negative evolution", with almost 400 people killed by the Taliban this year. The soaring levels of heroin production are another indication of a country that is still in deep trouble and the statistics that the Secretary of State offered us earlier highlight that starkly.
	We support the efforts that the Government are making as part of the international community's programme to bring long-term stability to Afghanistan. The leadership role being taken by the United Kingdom is a reflection of the skills and qualities of our armed forces, and they are to be congratulated on that. Like others, we look forward to hearing details of the forces to be deployed, as the headquarters Allied Rapid Reaction Corps takes on its responsibilities, as anticipated, in 2006. But this commitment comes at a time when the armed forces are seriously stretched. Squaring the circle of these substantial commitments will be no easy task.
	The recent National Audit Office report, which has been referred to already, set out some real problems in respect of readiness. It gave the MOD credit for its readiness reporting system, but throughout the document serious questions are raised about our armed forces' ability to react swiftly to new and unforeseen threats or operational imperatives. It makes for stark reading. In the period under review, more than a third of our armed forces had "serious weaknesses" in their readiness levels. The NAO identifies intense pressure on supplies and personnel, which, it says, have been redistributed to a point where effective and well-equipped fighting forces can only be assembled by widespread cannibalisation of military units and supplies. It concludes that the MOD
	"relies heavily on redistributing people and equipment to bring Force Elements up to sufficient strength to deploy on operations and expects to continue to do so".
	The NAO report is clear that military activity levels have consistently exceeded defence planning assumptions, and that that will remain the case for the foreseeable future. Inevitably, this brings into question the very assumptions themselves and the sustainability of the current, unexpected levels of commitment. We will doubtless hear more on this issue during the wind-ups, but a detailed MOD response to the report is surely needed as a matter of urgency.
	Echoing the conclusions of the NAO report, recently published figures reveal shortages of essential personnel across the services. Answers to parliamentary questions have highlighted that the Army is short of more than 600 medical personnel— including nurses, surgeons and anaesthetists—400 intelligence personnel, 900 logisticians and more than 1,300 engineers. The Royal Marines are short of more than 600 engineers. These are essential personnel. Our armed forces' ability to carry out demanding operations rapidly, effectively and safely must surely be put in jeopardy without these essential specialist and support personnel. Again, we need to know what action has been taken to address these shortfalls.
	It is not just the specialists who are under-strength. The MOD's own figures show that the Army has at least 1,600 fewer soldiers than the target strength, and it has been suggested that the shortfall figure is expected to increase. The Army's full-time fighting strength, as of 1 April, was some 102,000, yet the official training requirement is for more than 104,000. The Army's size is being cut by the regimental restructuring announced last year, and it is now short of well over 1,000 soldiers.

Kevan Jones: It is a privilege to contribute to this debate in a week when we respect and remember the veterans who fought for the freedoms of this country in the second world war. They fought fascism so that we could have the democratic freedoms that we take for granted today. It is also apt that we should this week remember the members of armed forces and the civilians who have died in the countless other conflicts since the second world war.
	It would be remiss of me not to refer to the tragic events that are happening around us today in the capital city. I add my sentiments to those of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), who said that our thoughts are with the families—but we must remember the dedicated and hard-working emergency workers who are, as we speak, working selflessly on behalf of their fellow citizens.
	The threat that we face now is very different to the bipolar world and the threat that we faced in the cold war. That threat was predictable, and I was very interested in the history lesson that we had from my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) about that bipolar world. We knew who the enemy was and we could ensure that we had the appropriate response. As my hon. Friend said, there were different views on how to respond to the threat, but at least we knew what it was. The threat we face today is, as we have tragically seen, unpredictable.
	In the last Parliament, I had the privilege of sitting on the Defence Committee. One of first reports we produced after the tragic events of 11 September was published in December 2001, and it was on the threat of terrorism. I thought that it would be interesting to revisit what we said. We stated:
	"Our conclusion is that the threat from terrorism has become more pressing and more dangerous. A threshold has been crossed in terms of scale and level of casualties."
	That is one thing that we need to remember about 11 September. The number of casualties that day changed terrorism across the world forever.
	We also said that our response to such terrorism had to be very different, and not only rely on a military solution. We said that the response needed to be three-pronged, including military, intelligence and diplomatic means. We also said that it must include a humanitarian response to root out the causes of terrorism in various parts of the world, which are the poverty and tragic conditions that allow terrorism to breed. The report states:
	"We must not lose our sense of the urgency and importance of this task in the months ahead. We must not hesitate to take the necessary steps to protect the UK and our interests overseas."
	Our response must be measured and purposeful, but it must ensure that the democracy that we take for granted and the freedom of movement that we enjoy continue.
	As I said, I served on the Defence Committee in the last Parliament and that gave me a great opportunity to meet many members of our armed forces in different parts of the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan. I echo the comments of other Members about the professionalism and dedication that our armed forces show in their duties across the world. In addition to the work that they do in Iraq and Afghanistan to fight terrorism, I saw good examples of the reconstruction work that they carry out. For example, the projects at Mazar-i-Sharif in northern Afghanistan involve military doctors working with local hospital doctors to bring health care to parts of Afghanistan that had never had it. We must bear in mind that our armed forces are involved in a lot of humanitarian work in which they have expertise. We should be grateful to them for that.
	If we are to ask our armed forces to undertake the necessary and sometimes dangerous tasks that they face, they must have the best equipment possible and the funding to go with it. I am pleased that the Government have committed extra expenditure to the defence budget—£3.7 billion over the next three years. That is the longest sustainable growth in the defence budget for more than 20 years. The Government can be proud of that. It is also important that the armed forces get the equipment that they need on time.
	I welcome the publication of the defence industrial policy. We should not forget the jobs that the defence industry sustains and the skills that it maintains. The policy was welcomed by industry and it set out clearly how the record expenditure that the Government are putting into defence could also benefit large and small industrial companies in this country. It also gave a clear commitment to deal with some of the legacy issues that were left over from the previous Conservative Government. The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) reeled off a long list of what this Government had got wrong or had overspent on, but it is interesting that he seemed to forget the £900 million hole that they left at Rosyth when they took the clear political decision to move Trident submarine refit work to Devonport.
	I also refer to the legacy issues that we had to take on, such as the Astute and other projects. They went way over budget and were unrealistically framed in the first place. We have done good work, but that has meant putting more money into those projects. I visited Barrow a few months ago, and the Astute project is now back on schedule. I pay credit to the work force there who have put in a tremendous amount of hard work.
	I have criticisms, however, of the Defence Procurement Agency. I know that the Defence Committee was very critical of the way that the organisation operates. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) refer to urgent operational requirements. I want more of them, because they seem to get equipment on to the battlefield or into people's hands a lot quicker. They ensured that the equipment arrived. The problem with the system, however, is that it is over-burdensome and so-called smart procurement does not deliver equipment to the front line or ensure that it represents better value for money.
	The other problem with the Defence Procurement Agency and smart procurement is the effect on small and medium-sized enterprises. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the organisation Northern Defence Industries, that has done sterling work trying to put supply chains together to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises can get into defence work. That is paying dividends because many companies in the north-east are for the first time getting into projects in which they would not have participated in the past.
	There is a bar, however, because under the prime contractor route the problem is that the prime contractor is selected, but the supply chain is somehow thought about afterwards. We need to sharpen up procedures so that we ensure not only that we know the position of prime contractors when they are appointed, but that we have a locally sourced supply chain in place because many companies will happily participate in such projects if they are given the opportunity to do so.
	A further criticism that I make of the Defence Procurement Agency is its turnover of staff. The Defence Committee discovered that the turnover rate is some 30 per cent. of its staff, which leads to inefficient procurement for new projects. If Lord Drayson, the new defence procurement Minister, has the legendary business expertise about which I am told, he needs to take a clear, hard look at the way in which simple projects can sometimes take far too long after they get stuck in the Defence Procurement Agency in Bristol.
	I have already mentioned urgent operational requirements. The Defence Committee examined lessons that could be learned from our operations in Iraq during Operation Telic. The urgent operational requirements worked well—the hon. Member for Gosport referred to the Minimi machine guns. However, other problems that we have raised have, alas, not been addressed. I am worried that although the Defence Committee and others highlight such problems, we seem to have to wait the gestation period of several African elephants before any action is taken. For example, logistics supply is even more important now that we have a style of warfare that is more expeditionary, which will be reflected in future projects. It is thus important to get the logistics chain right, but it was clear that there were problems during Operation Telic when trying to find out where things were in the supply chain.
	One of the Committee's conclusions was that such problems were not new because they had been highlighted after the first Gulf war of 1991. The lack of an asset-tracking system in Operation Telic caused numerous serious problems in theatre, including problems with the distribution of critical items such as body armour and nuclear, biological and chemical equipment. The Committee's report said we needed to urge the Ministry of Defence to come up with a solution to the problem as a top priority.
	We also heard evidence that an off-the-shelf solution had been bought to take a lot of equipment back to the UK. The American system allows containers to be asset-tracked throughout the supply chain, so people know not only where they are, but what is in them. However, lo and behold, the Ministry of Defence and the DPA want to reinvent the wheel by trying to wed together the three existing Army, Navy and Air Force systems, which do not talk to each other. I sometimes wonder whether we should just buy equipment off the shelf, instead of thinking that we need a home-grown solution for such complex systems. That solution would take a long time to develop, which would not only delay equipment from getting to a vital theatre, but mean that it would take a long time before new developments occurred. Overall, we should be proud of the men and women of our armed forces and their commitment. Given the community that I represent, it is rewarding to see the opportunity that the armed forces give young men and women from deprived backgrounds to fulfil their potential. When I meet those men and women, wherever they are throughout the world, I never cease to be amazed by their dedication and the large responsibility that rests on some very young shoulders.

James Arbuthnot: I agree with the general thrust of what the hon. Gentleman says. I am not sure whether it is right to say that the press distort what is happening; it is just that the press inevitably concentrate on the news. We can all be proud of the sort of work that our armed forces are doing in Iraq, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has just said.
	Our armed forces will continue to do a good job for this country, so long as the politicians treat them right, and I worry sometimes that we politicians do not treat our armed forces right. We sometimes take for granted what they do, and we sometimes make their lives more difficult. The conditions under which they work—the recruitment and retention conditions—are often exacerbated by pay and terms of employment that are extremely complicated and do not match the world outside.
	I should like to hear from the Minister when he responds to the debate how he believes that recruitment into the armed forces is going. What does he believe is the structure of the recruitment process? There are suggestions that the process has been stripped out to provide people and equipment to the front line. That may be a short-term answer to what is a medium and long-term problem. I should like reassurance from the Minister when he responds.
	Similarly, the Armed Forces Pay Review Body is important and needs to preserve its independence in everything that it does—independence not only from the Executive, but from the Treasury. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) has often suggested that the Treasury is working for the Russians, and the Ministry of Defence is inevitably accused of making decisions that are Treasury-driven. Given the expense of defence, that is hardly surprising.
	Yesterday in Trafalgar square, as the Red Arrows flew over, we realised quite what a source of pride not just the Red Arrows, but everything that our armed forces do, is to the whole country. I was delighted to hear from the Minister on Monday that the Ministry of Defence will increase pilots' flying time. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said, 16 and a half hours' flying time a month is not enough to maintain the capabilities of our fast-jet pilots. When the Minister said that those hours would be increased next year, that was good to hear, but by how much? Will the increase be enough to improve the capability of our pilots, so that we can continue to produce the Red Arrow pilots that we all find so inspiring? The aircraft also need to be available, rather than being cannibalised, as has been suggested and discussed in some of the Defence Committee's very good reports.
	Finally, this is an appropriate day on which to hold this debate because it falls in veterans awareness week. We can remind ourselves how essential to our future are the well-maintained, well-resourced armed forces that we have come to rely on, but let us never forget how essential the veterans were to our past and to our present. They stood shoulder to shoulder to defend our world, our country, our values and our principles, and we will remember them.

Mark Lancaster: Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you—I think—for calling me to speak after the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway). I sense that, in the circumstances, I should make an early declaration that I continue to serve as a bomb disposal officer in the Territorial Army. Perhaps I can attempt to defuse this situation, although I should probably steer clear of commenting on many of his remarks.
	I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman's observation that today's events were tragic and despicable. That was brought home to me today when I received a phone call from my wife. She left our house in King's Cross at 8.50 this morning and went down to the tube platform, only to leave it again to go and buy herself a pair of tights. Had she not done so, I believe that she would have been on the train that the bomb was on. From that point of view at least, I am grateful that she bought her tights today.
	I would like to pick up on some of the comments made by other hon. Members about the veterans' days coming up this weekend. I play an active part in our Royal British Legion in Olney and I hope the House will forgive me for giving a shameless plug for its events on Sunday. Comments were made about the Trafalgar day celebrations last Tuesday. I thought they were excellent, not least the fireworks display—but I would say that, as the family firm put it on.
	I have been told that an author's first book tends to be based on personal experience, so as this is my first speech in a Defence debate, I shall concentrate on what I know. To that end, I shall explore two main topics: the overstretch of the armed forces and the balance between our commitments and capabilities and, specifically, its impact on our reserve forces. I am sorry that the Secretary of State made no mention of our reserve forces in his opening remarks, although I realise that he was pressed for time. I shall consider in some detail the ongoing TA future army structure review.
	The Government have repeatedly tried to maintain that our armed forces do not suffer from overstretch, yet by their own definition, according to the 1998 strategic defence review, overstretch is
	"trying to do too much with too little manpower".
	It is blindingly obvious that our armed forces are working under those conditions. The two accepted measures for dealing with overstretch are to increase recruitment and retention and/or to reduce overseas commitments. Instead, the Government's defence policy includes cutting existing numbers, freezing recruitment and increasing our commitments, be it in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, East Timor or elsewhere.
	Our armed forces also have UK commitments, such as the 2001 foot and mouth crisis, flooding or Operation Fresco, the reaction to the firefighters strike. Although our armed forces have always risen to those challenges with the professionalism for which they are renowned, they highlight in no uncertain terms the pressures under which our armed services are working.
	The imbalance between commitments and capabilities has led to an unfair over-reliance on reservists. The Defence White Paper in 2003 examined in one of its supporting essays, "developing the reserves". In that paper, the Government claim that they look to reservists to provide
	"forces (for both contingent and enduring operations) which cannot always be justified as full-time parts of the Regular establishment on grounds of cost or the need for specialised transferable skills".
	That is an awful lot of pressure for reservists.
	We have already seen that operations in theatres such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq could not have been undertaken without the use of reserve forces. About 8,500 personnel are currently deployed in Iraq, down from 46,000 at the peak of the fighting phase. About 6,170 TA personnel were mobilised on Operation Telic. I accept that that may seem only a small percentage of the total TA force, but we must remember that only TA soldiers deemed fit for role can be mobilised—those who have been trained in their proper profession and who are suitable for the job that they are being held against. As there is a high turnover of TA personnel—it can be up to 25 per cent. in any one unit in any one year—the pool of TA servicemen who can be called on at any one time for operational service is much smaller than the overall figure that is given.
	I have recently left a bomb disposal regiment and I know that the soldiers available to fill the slots required in Iraq are very few indeed. The same people are called again and again. I have been mobilised for operational service twice in the past four years. The TA is a shotgun that can be fired, but I am not convinced that the Secretary of State is fully addressing the regeneration issues caused by the constant mobilisation of the same personnel.
	With that in mind, it is perhaps unfortunate that, last December, the Government announced plans to increase the total number of part-time servicemen deployed in Iraq to 1,000 by May 2005. According to the MOD, under the SDR, TA personnel will be considered for service in Iraq for as long as that conflict continues. The Iraq war has created a few problems for TA members. Many did not receive any pay in the first weeks after mobilisation. It was appalling that, while they were at war, they had to arrange finance to cover loans and mortgages, adding unnecessary work and anxiety and that £40 million in additional retention bounties due to be paid out March 2004 was retained by the MOD because of computer problems. There are also concerns about insurance, especially as many reservists had little notice of their mobilisation.
	A survey of TA personnel sent to the Gulf found that 80 per cent. did not expect their employer to support any future development, 63 per cent. of medical and technical staff said that they were thinking of resigning from the TA, 73 per cent. said that the NHS would lose vital skills because of deployments and 39 per cent. were worried about the effect on their job security.
	That said, on a positive note, I am encouraged that much has been learned from the experience of Operation Telic and the attitude surveys of soldiers returning from deployed operations. That has led to a progressive overhaul of, and gradual improvements to, TA conditions of service and employer and welfare support. The MOD's support for reservists is improving—I give credit to the Government for that—and includes providing demobilising reservists with information regarding their legal rights. Another step in the right direction is the SaBRE—supporting Britain's reservists and employers—campaign. However, more needs to be done, as two independent reports commissioned by the Government show that employers' awareness of SaBRE in the first year of its existence was very low.
	Although reservists are given statutory protection under the provisions of the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985, some reservists have problems in retaining their jobs while serving in the armed forces. The Reserve Forces Act 1996 states that, if a reservist loses their job, they can take their employer to an industrial tribunal, but crucially the MOD does not act on their behalf. Also, although that Act rightly gives reservists safeguard of employment, it does not give safeguard of promotion.
	From a practical point of view, many employers now look at returning reservists and say, "Under the current climate you may well be mobilised again, and while I have to give your job back, I am not necessarily going to promote you." That is a vital element that the Government must consider. Reservists are being mobilised once, coming back, realising that they must give priority to their primary career, not to the Territorial Army, and resigning. That is putting even greater pressure on current members of the reserve forces because the pool from which people can be drawn is getting smaller and smaller.
	I think that under the circumstances I have probably gone on for too long. Since other Members want to speak, I will not proceed to my second point. I merely ask the Secretary of State to look beyond what is currently happening to the Territorial Army, because the undue pressure that the imbalance between commitments and capabilities is putting on the TA and other reserve forces is almost at breaking point.

Michael Penning: I agree, but it does not always work. It did not work very well when I was there. The British troops told me that the best air conditioning is achieved by opening both ends of the tent and hoping that God blows really hard.
	I accept that operational problems occur, but this is the 21st century. The American pods were brought in by contractors. When I was in Germany in the 1970s, the Americans came off exercises and went for showers in massive articulated lorries. We stood and watched, as proud as punch and smelling like anything because we had not had a shower for nearly two weeks.
	I accept that that is how the British Army works, and it is why we have the best soldiers in the world. However, on such a long-term deployment as the one in Iraq, it cannot be right that the problem with the tent that I have set out should have occurred.
	When I was in the military, we were all very proud of the NAAFI, which has done a wonderful job of looking after our troops for many years. I asked the guys in al-Amarah how much they used the NAAFI shop there. They told me that they tried not to use it at all, because the locals sold goods such as CDs, batteries—or even drink—more cheaply. I know that a parliamentary question on this matter was tabled before the Secretary of State came to office, but why are the goods that we sell to our troops more expensive than the ones that they can obtain privately from local sources? It is ridiculous. The NAAFI is there not to rip off our troops, but to serve them in the field.
	Probably the biggest bugbear in the British Army since the time that I joined in 1974 and still today is the personal webbing and kit of a soldier in the field. We had the debacle of the SA80 and whether it would be refurbished or not. The new SA80 A2 is a damn good weapon. We accept that. The troops said to me, "The first one was a heap of rubbish, sir. This one actually works." That is fantastic news, but we should have got it right at the start. There were other issues, such as whether the guys out there had proper food, loo roll and so on.
	When I returned to Iraq just before the general election, we still had troops in olive green webbing in the middle of a desert. "Why?", I asked the commanding officer. "The webbing hasn't come through, sir." Then I commented to the commanding officer that a lot of the webbing and equipment the soldiers were wearing was not Army issue. I asked why that was. When I served in the Guards, I could not even put a pair of bootlaces into my boots without my sergeant major saying, "That's not issue, lad. You're not having it in there." When I asked the commanding officer in Iraq what was going on, he replied, "Our decision is now, sir, if the soldiers can buy it and are willing to buy it, and it's better than what they get on issue, we'll let them wear it."
	I was astounded. The Guards, of all the regiments, would never have let that happen. The reason that it is happening is that the kit that the taxpayer is buying and that we are procuring for our troops is not suitable for use. We need a full review. I know the Minister disagrees, but we need a review of personal kit. Before the election, I met a mother whose son had just joined the Royal Engineers. She had spent £1,000 out of her own money buying kit for him. The average sum spent, the soldiers in Iraq told me, was £750. That cannot be right. Taxpayers' money is being spent, yet these guys and girls are still going off and buying equipment.
	The units that I was with in Iraq were men-only units. I then went to the field hospital, where I was told that everything was fine except that there was a slight shortage of nurses. I suggested that lots of nurses must have been called up through the Territorial Army. "We've called up all we can, Mr. Penning," they said, "but we are still desperately short of nurses." I asked how they were filling the gap. "Well, Mr. Penning, I mustn't tell you this, but we are using a company called Frontier Medical. That's an agency. We have agency nurses here in al-Amarah, supporting our troops in the field." I praise the agency nurses for having the guts and determination to go out there, but they are on £600 a day. Our junior troops do not earn £300 a week. There is something wrong with such an imbalance.
	Another imbalance was alluded to in earlier comments. Some of our troops are leaving as soon as they return to the UK We must ask ourselves why they are leaving. Is it because their time is up and they have done their service—their three, six or nine years? No. Most of them are leaving by purchasing. They are going before their commanding officer and asking to purchase their discharge from the armed forces. Why are senior NCOs leaving the armed forces after six, seven, eight or nine years? The answer is that they are going back to Iraq, Minister. They are going back to be part of the security services out there because they can earn in a day what our guys are earning in a fortnight. That must be wrong. We must assess why that is happening.
	One reason why there are so many security guards out there is that we do not have enough troops to supply. I shall give an example. When I was in Baghdad, I was kindly put up at the ambassador's residence. We were met and taken around brilliantly by plainclothes Royal Military Police—some of the best trained soldiers I have ever worked with. They were fantastic. The ambassador's residence is guarded by private security companies. The embassy in Baghdad is guarded by private security companies. When the Royal Military Police are asked, "Isn't it slightly embarrassing that you can't guard our ambassador in a conflict situation?", they say, "With what, sir? The Royal Military Police isn't big enough to do this any more."
	I do not want to hark back to the days when the armed forces would not have fitted inside Wembley stadium, when it is eventually built. Now, the whole of the British Army would fit inside Wembley stadium once it is built. I do not want to hark back to the fact that we have tremendous problems with recruitment, even though it is plain why we have such problems. Our biggest problem is retention. The Minister knows that, as it has come up time and again. Our experienced servicemen are going back home. The Scots Guards have gone back to Munster. Even before they have left the area, it is known that most of the senior and middle-ranking NCOs will leave the armed forces. Something must be done to encourage them to stay. They joined the armed forces because they wanted to be in the armed forces, but they are being undermined while they are out there serving.
	I may have spoken for slightly too long, and I apologise. Let me finally say that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway) said something that worried me. I fear—I am not saying this just because he is not present—that his comments will probably have caused even more problems for morale in the armed forces. They are the last thing that our troops need to hear. What really worried me, though, was his saying that a 17-year-old soldier had been deployed to Iraq. I was a boy soldier, but could not be deployed even to Northern Ireland until I was 18. If what the hon. Gentleman said was incorrect, I hope that the Minister will let us know. Soldiers must be 18, and that is how it should be. Boy soldiers should not be deployed, and God forbid that they ever will be.
	Young soldiers need to be trained. That helped me enormously to get on to the straight and narrow when I was a young man of 16. I am proud to have served, and I was proud to go and visit our troops. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will consider some of their problems and concerns, which I promised them I would raise in the House if I was elected.

Julian Lewis: I wish to start with a quotation from that great public servant, the late Lord Ismay. He served as Churchill's representative on the Chiefs of Staff committee throughout world war two and later became the first Secretary-General of NATO. He therefore spanned a great deal of the history of the 20th century, and in his active service as a young officer, he had something to do with insurgencies as well. When he was looking back on this unparalleled career, he wrote:
	"It is easy to criticise peaceful democracies for their habitual lack of preparedness when a war breaks out, but it is only fair to recognise that the dice are loaded against them. Dictators, bent on aggression . . . are masters of their own timetable. They are free to decide when to strike, where to strike and how to strike, and to arrange their armament programmes accordingly. Their potential victims, the democracies . . . with their inherent hatred of war, do not know when or where the blow will fall, or what manner of blow it will be."
	If Lord Ismay were alive, well and living in these times, I think that he would say something similar about the problems that we face today.
	A threat is at large in the world that is beginning to manifest itself on a small scale domestically in the homelands of the principal democratic countries. We saw it in America in September 2001; we saw it in Spain on the eve of its general election; and we have seen it today; and of course, it is no coincidence that the G8 summit is currently under way.
	I will not wander from the subject of the debate, which is "Defence in the World", but I agree with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway) to the extent that there would be an air of unreality about a defence debate taking place on such a day if it did not in any way allude at least to the type of conflict of which we have seen such a terrible and despicable manifestation in the streets and on the tube network of London today.
	I will not speculate about who did this, but I will make a prediction. My prediction is that it will be found in the end that very small numbers of people indeed were involved in carrying out these atrocities, just as very small numbers were involved in carrying out the atrocities that we have seen in a variety of countries since September 2001. I do not know whether the people carrying out these atrocities have a real understanding of the resilience of democratic societies under such circumstances. Again, I agree with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow to the extent that, from the point of view of the victim, it makes very little difference whether they are killed by a suicide bomber on a bus or by a high explosive dropped from an aircraft. That is not to say, however, that the two activities are comparable.
	Certain methods of war are recognised as legal. Certain methods of killing people are widely recognised as totally unacceptable. No matter how volubly, with what degree of articulation, or at what volume the hon. Gentleman may speak—I am sorry that he has not seen it fit to come back to the Chamber now that he has caught his headlines—he nevertheless cannot conceal the basic difference between casualties who get caught up in conventional warfare and casualties who get caught up in acts of terrorism. There are laws of war, but what happened today was not part of any recognised law of war.
	I am sorry that there is still a Member of this House who is willing to try to justify, or empathise with, people who behave illegally when fighting their cause, no matter how strongly he happens to believe the grievances that they imagine they have. What is it that people of this sort really expect us to do? Do they really expect us to hand over a country such as Iraq to people, for the most part foreigners, who would destroy any chance of freedom for the millions of people who make up that society? Did they expect us to have done nothing in Afghanistan? I remember that a Member in the last Parliament said that we should have bombed Afghanistan with bread, not bombs, and subsequently identified with, and empathised with, suicide terrorists in the middle east. She has gone to a well deserved fate in the House of Lords and I am glad to say that her outlook is not widely shared.
	When we consider the defence in the world that we have to undertake, we must recognise that the people who are mounting these campaigns fully understand the importance of having maximum impact for minimum effort. We must fight on the ground where we are strongest, not where they are strongest. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said that some of those people are prepared to sacrifice their lives if they can take thousands of people with them. Yes, indeed they are, which is why there is only one threat about which we really must worry as a nation, as opposed to as individuals, families and people who may get caught up in random or planned acts of terrorism: people of that sort must never be allowed to get their hands on weapons that could possibly kill thousands or tens of thousands because we know that they would unhesitatingly use them if they could get hold of them. That is why the threshold has been lowered for intervention internationally. That is why one cannot take the chance of allowing other countries with dictatorial regimes that might think it in their interests to make such weapons available to such terrorists to continue to have the possibility of owning those weapons, unless they can satisfy the international community that they absolutely have renounced them.
	We heard several hon. Members pleading the cause, even now, of unilateral nuclear disarmament. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said that we should not be thinking of Trident, but rushing round the world trying to scoop up the loose fissile material that has gone missing from the former Soviet Union. However, I say to him that those two propositions have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Whether or not we have a successor to Trident will of course not diminish the problem of terrorists getting their hands on fissile material, but it would certainly add to our dangers if we got into a situation in which other countries continued to possess nuclear weapons while we renounced ours.
	The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith), in a typically thoughtful speech that became typically emotional, did everything that he could to argue the case for the Defence Aviation Repair Agency workers who formerly did such an excellent job in his constituency for the RAF.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) gave an account of the basis of the more extreme factions of militant Islam and said that there was not enough emphasis on winning hearts and minds. Here there is a role for our Defence Secretary and Prime Minister to do a little more in carrying over to our American allies the successful techniques that have been used by British forces over the post-war decades in defeating long-term insurgencies. The most obvious role model is the long campaign in Malaya. At the end of that campaign, the insurgency was defeated. Insurgencies have to be defeated by a number of means. They have to be resisted militarily; they have to be fought at source; they have to be infiltrated at home; and one must never give the slightest evidence of weakness of purpose.
	There, I take issue with one or two Members such as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who suggested for the Liberal Democrats that it was important to set some sort of date for withdrawal. Nothing could be better calculated to increase the dangers to our troops working in Iraq than the knowledge that the insurgents had to hold on only for so long and those troops would be gone. If we are to fight a campaign of this sort, the message has to be that there will be no withdrawal until the enemy are defeated, so they may as well give up now because they are not going to win. Anything less than that message and we may as well not have got involved in the first place; otherwise, we will be heading for unnecessary casualties and ultimate costly failure.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) made the point that the sort of incidents that we have seen in London today have been happening for a long time and on a much heavier scale in Iraq. I could add that they are also similar to events in Israel. Whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of the Arab-Israeli dispute, one must recognise that the incidents that have happened on such a heavy scale in Israel have no chance whatever of overthrowing the Israeli state. The sooner terrorists and their apologists realise that they will have no chance of overthrowing the democratic system of the United Kingdom, the sooner this sort of strife and atrocious behaviour can be brought to an end.
	The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) remarked on the role of international organisations and sensibly backed up her point with a hard-headed realisation of the necessity from time to time to use military force. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) concentrated on the use of our reservists, who are put under excessive pressure at a time when we are dependent on them as well as on our regular forces.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) brought to our debate knowledge that can be gained only as a highly professional former regular soldier by talking about what it really means to the troops on the ground not to have the adequate equipment and adequate communications on which their lives may well depend.
	Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) suggested that we were intervening too often. I do not entirely accept what he said about Sierra Leone per se. I visited the country with the Defence Committee and I can tell my hon. Friend that people were stopping us in the street and thanking us simply for being there, because a relatively small military investment had had a relatively large effect on the security of many people living there. I venture to add that it brought a beneficial effect on the area as a whole. I agree with my hon. Friend that when we take decisive action of that sort in a country like Sierra Leone, it seems rather inconsistent that we refuse to take action in countries facing equally if not more extreme circumstances, such as the suffering of those poor people under Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
	As I have a few moments left, I want to say a little more about the nuclear deterrentsomething that is close to my heart because I go back on this campaign to a time in the 1980s, which included a famous long march by the then general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Monsignor Bruce Kent. He started out at Faslane and walked all the way to Burfield. At various stages en route, he was joined by people like me who disagreed with him and people like the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow who strongly agreed with him. Of course the cold war was still raging. At that timein no way do I distort the argumentit was suggested that there was no evidence whatsoever that the Soviet Union and its Warsaw pact allies posed a significant or serious military threat.
	In 1998, a book was published called The Cold War: A Military History, which revealed some of the plans that the German Government discovered after the downfall of communism. This is what they said:
	since the end of the Cold War, no evidence has been found of any Warsaw Pact defensive plans, except for a few formulated in the final three years, after President Gorbachev had insisted that the General Staff prepared them. Instead, all plans concentrated on a series of massive attacks, which were aimed at securing Soviet control of the entire west-European land mass.
	A campaign was planned that would overrun the central front and then France would be overrun,
	so that the leading troops arrived at the Atlantic coast and the Franco-Spanish border by the thirty-fifth day.
	In these plans it was intended to use nuclear weapons as an integral part of the attacks, even if NATO did not use them first, and many targets had already been selected. The main attacks on the Central Front would have been allocated 205 Scud rockets at army level and 380 short-range missiles at divisional level, which 255 nuclear bombs carried by aircraft.
	At that time, plenty of people believed that it was unwise of us to keep nuclear weapons. I should like to ask the House how many people still think that it was unwise for us to keep nuclear weapons in the light of what we now know of the Soviet attack plans if a war had broken out. Those were offensive, not defensive, plans.
	It is said that article VI of the non-proliferation treaty commits us to getting rid of all our nuclear weapons. Well, yes and no. What it actually commits us to is
	to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date,
	which we certainly have done,
	and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
	In other words, what it is saying is that we should aim for both a nuclear-free world and a conventional-arms-free world as well.
	I was indeed at that meeting with Robert McNamara, a gentleman who played a key role in the evolution of America's strategy in the run-up to and during the Vietnam war. I noted that he did indeed say that nuclear weapons are illegal. I then challenged him on that very point, and he showed straightaway that he did indeed know that the requirement was for worldwide nuclear and worldwide conventional disarmament, and he said that an attempt was even made to insert a comma between the two at some point to try to differentiate them, but that it had mysteriously disappeared. That did not stop that gentleman, who is a remarkable character at the age of 88, from nevertheless having conceded the point that nuclear weapons were not illegal under that provision, rounding off his speech with the peroration that was quoted by the hon. Member for Pendle, and reasserting that they were illegal after all.
	I have to ask the hon. Member for Pendle and those who think like him why someone whose judgment was so flawed in the 1960s appeals to them now as having wise judgment in the 21st century. The answer is that people with a career that points them in a certain direction during its active phase sometimes, with a view to history, like to rewrite it or reshape it during their retirement.

Kevin Barron: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind all hon. Members[Interruption.] Order. May I remind all hon. Members that good temper and moderation are the hallmarks of language in the Chamber?